"The Voice of the New Due Process Army" ————– Musings on Events in U.S. Immigration Court, Immigration Law, Sports, Music, Politics, and Other Random Topics by Retired United States Immigration Judge (Arlington, Virginia) and former Chairman of the Board of Immigration Appeals PAUL WICKHAM SCHMIDT and DR. ALICIA TRICHE, expert brief writer, practical scholar, emeritus Editor-in-Chief of The Green Card (FBA), and 2022 Federal Bar Association Immigration Section Lawyer of the Year. She is a/k/a “Delta Ondine,” a blues-based alt-rock singer-songwriter, who performs regularly in Memphis, where she hosts her own Blues Brunch series, and will soon be recording her first full, professional album. Stay tuned! 🎶 To see our complete professional bios, just click on the link below.
If you have children, imagine how you would feel seeing them taken away like that. Hug your kids. Imagine not knowing where they are or whether you’ll ever get to hug them again.
Now imagine the terror and despair those 711 “ineligible” children must feel. It is monstrous to gratuitously inflict such pain. It is, in a word, torture.
In 120 cases, according to the government, a parent “waived” reunification with the child. This claim cannot be taken at face value, however, since immigration advocates cite widespread reports of parents being coerced or fooled into signing documents they did not understand.
Human nature binds parents with their children. It shocks and depresses me to have to write this, but I wonder whether Trump and his minions see these Central Americans — brown-skinned, with indigenous features — as fully human.
In 431 cases involving children between 5 and 17, officials reported, the parents have been deported. Where are they now? How could the government let this happen? If these parents were going to be denied permission to stay in the United States, what was the big hurry to kick them out? Why couldn’t the administration wait until their children could be brought back from wherever they were being kept?
Even more incredibly, in 79 cases, the children’s parents have been released into the United States. In other words, the parents have some legal status — but the government has their children.
And in 94 cases, according to Trump administration officials, the parents cannot be located. What are the odds, do you think, that these men and women will ever be found? Where do parents go to begin the process of tracking down their children? How do you tell a 5-year-old that she may never see her mother and father again?
That’s the reported situation for children 5 and older. The government is also still holding 46 children younger than 5 whom officials cannot or will not give back to their parents. Think of the trauma being inflicted on 2-year-olds — to make a political point.
All of this is happening because Trump has no respect for law or due process and no sense of empathy. He was reportedly upset this spring by a rise in border crossings by asylum-seekers, who by law had to be allowed to stay pending resolution of their claims. He and Sessions seized upon the pretext — for which they have not provided evidence — that children were being “trafficked” into the country for some reason.
“If you’re smuggling a child, then we’re going to prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you, probably, as required by law,” Sessions said in May. “If you don’t want your child separated, then don’t bring them across the border illegally.”
Think, for a moment, of the millions of Irish, Italian, Eastern European and other immigrants who “smuggled” children into the United States — families such as Trump’s own. The only difference is that those earlier immigrants, though sometimes rejected at first, came to be seen as white.
Brown immigrants need not apply. Not if they want to see their kids again.
*********************************
Read Robinson’s complete op-ed at the above link.
“Right on” Eugene! We need “regime change,” sooner rather than later. And, we still don’t have an answer to Eugene’s earlier question: When, if ever, will Sessions and other Trump Administration officials be held accountable for their intentionally lawless and unconstitutional behavior?
(CNN)The number of pending cases in US immigration courts hit a record high this year and the trend shows no sign of slowing down.
With more than 700,000 open cases as of May, judges face a heavy case load. To alleviate the burden, two retired federal judges have proposed a solution: bring jurists like them back to the bench.
“We certainly have the expertise. We’ve handled heavy dockets of cases and we’re accustomed with having to get up to speed very quickly in various areas of the law,” retired US District Court Judge Marilyn Hall Patel said.
Patel and retired Judge D. Lowell Jensen sent a letter with the recommendation earlier this month to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and James McHenry, director of the DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review. The Department of Justice did not respond to a request for comment on Thursday night.
“We are aware that at this time there are extraordinary burdens and backlogs faced every day by the country’s immigration judges, particularly along the southern border. We believe retired federal judges are a valuable untapped resource who could be called into service to assist in handling the immigration caseload fairly and efficiently,” the pair wrote in a letter dated July 12.
Retired judges have been vetted before so the process for obtaining security clearances wouldn’t take as long as it would for new appointees, the letter said. And because federal judges receive an annuity from the government, they could potentially “volunteer” their time without drawing a salary, Patel added.
Retired US District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel in 1992.
They also bring experience in immigration law from their time on the bench and other chapters of their career, Patel said. She worked as a DOJ attorney for the Immigration and Naturalization Service from 1967 to 1971. She served as district court judge for 32 years before retiring in 2012.
Like many federal judges, especially those in large metropolitan areas or near ports of entry, Patel said she handled various immigration matters: asylum cases, deportations, removals and petitions for release, or habeas corpus. None in particular stand out — “they sort of merge all together,” she said. But one of her cases resurfaced after she retired, through the Trump administration’s travel ban.
In 1983, Patel overturned Japanese-American Fred Korematsu’s criminal conviction for disobeying government orders during World War II to leave his Bay Area home and enter an internment camp. But the infamous 1944 Supreme Court decision that blessed the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II remained intact — until Chief Justice John Roberts announced that the court was overruling it in its ruling upholding the travel ban.
Otherwise, Patel said she has kept a relatively low profile, with a few speaking engagements and some consulting work here and there. But as controversy and caseloads grew along the southern border, she felt compelled to act, she said. She contacted Jensen, who served on the federal bench for 28 years, who agreed to co-sign the letter.
“We urge you to utilize this considerable resource since we know that vetting and appointment of new [immigration judges] will take some time, and time is of the essence to meet the crushing burden of pending and new cases,” the letter said.
Patel said she had yet to receive any response from the government.
“I’m not holding my breath,” she said. “I know federal judges are perceived as being very independent and that may not be to the liking of the attorney general or the Department of Justice at this time.”
**********************************
Interesting!
Sounds like a great idea! I think it would be an eye opener for both the Article IIIs and the IJs.
Suspect, though, as suggested in the article, the “real judges” would be too independent for Sessions & McHenry.
How DOJ & EOIR respond to this offer will tell us lots about whether they genuinely desire to resolve the Immigration Court backlog in a fundamentally fair manner, consistent with Due Process, or whether the backlog is purposely being “jacked up” and used as a “bludgeon” by Sessions to eliminate Due Process and otherwise push for draconian changes in the law.
On Thursday, July 26, EOIR, in a costly and inefficient use of the agency’s resources, sent an Assistant Chief Immigration Judge to the Philadelphia Immigration Court to conduct a single preliminary hearing. Although there was no indication of any legitimate basis for doing so, the case had been taken off of the calendar of an experienced Immigration Judge in Philadelphia, apparently for the sole reason that the judge had exercised independent judgment by asking for briefs on the issue of whether the respondent had in fact received notice of the hearing. The Assistant Chief Judge (a part of EOIR’s management) ordered the respondent removed in absentia without further inquiry into such question, fulfilling the purpose for which she was sent to Philadelphia.
An independent judiciary is imperative to democracy. Immigration Judges have always struggled to maintain independence while remaining in the employ of an enforcement agency, the Department of Justice, and serving at the pleasure of a political appointee, the Attorney General. Although not entitled to the same due process safeguards as criminal proceedings, the consequences of deportation can be as harsh as any criminal penalty. As their decisions often have life-or-death consequences, Immigration Judges must be afforded the independence to conduct fair, impartial hearings. For this reason, some important due process safeguards are required in deportation proceedings, and errors should be corrected through the appeals process, not through interference by managers.
Last Thursday’s case had been remanded by Attorney General Jeff Sessions. In the absence of another explanation, it would seem that EOIR’s management did not believe Sessions’ purpose in remanding the case was for an Immigration Judge to then exercise independent judgment to ensure due process. The agency therefore removed the case from the docket of a capable judge in order to ensure an outcome that would please its higher-ups. While as former Immigration Judges and BIA Members with many decades of combined experience, we appreciate the pressures on EOIR’s leadership, such interference with judicial independence is unacceptable. EOIR’s management exists to fulfill an administrative function, not to impede on the decision-making process of its judges. EOIR more than ever needs leadership with the courage to protect its judges from political pressures and to defend their independence. As a democracy, we expect our judges to reach results based on what is just, even where such results are not aligned with the desired outcomes of politicians.
Hon. Steven Abrams Hon. Sarah M. Burr Hon. Jeffrey S. Chase Hon. Cecelia M. Espenoza Hon. John F. Gossart, Jr. Hon. William P. Joyce Hon. Carol King Hon. Margaret McManus Hon. Charles Pazar Hon. Susan Roy Hon. Paul W. Schmidt Hon. Polly A. Webber
*************************************
Sadly, no surprise that under Sessions the “captive” U.S. Immigration Courts are becoming more blatantly politicized — always in ways that are adverse to Due Process, an independent judiciary, and the rights of migrants appearing before those courts.
We need an Article I U.S. Immigration Court, run by judges, not politicos, with the assistance of professional court administrators responsible to the judges.
The last legalization program was established by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, more than 30 years ago. The Democrats claim that this is because the Republicans won’t cooperate, but that isn’t true.
The Democrats could have established a legalization program without Republican cooperation during the first two years of Barack Obama’s administration. From January 2009 to January 2011, they had a majority in the House, and until Scott Brown’s special election in 2010, there were enough Democratic senators to overcome a filibuster.
And they could establish one now if they really wanted to.
Trump is willing to support legalization for 1.8 million aliens in the DACAprogram if the Democrats accept the three conditions in his framework on immigration reform and border security.
Trump wants to end chain migration. This should not be a deal-breaker if the legalization program were to be established by expanding the availability of Special Immigrant Juveniles (SIJ) status to include DACA participants, which could restrict the end of chain migration to them as opposed to ending it for everyone.
SIJ provisions state, “no natural parent or prior adoptive parent of any alien provided special immigrant status under this subparagraph shall thereafter, by virtue of such parentage, be accorded any right, privilege, or status under this Act.”
Trump also wants a wall along the border with Mexico, which would make it more difficult for parents to make illegal crossings with their young children in the future. Adults may be able to climb over a wall 20 or 30 feet high, but young children can’t.
The Democrats have been willing to end the DVP in the past. Sen. Chuck Schumer’s (D-N.Y.) Gang of Eight bill would have repealed it in 2013 if it had been enacted.
The problem seems to be that legalization isn’t very important to the Democrats.
*****************************************
Go on over to The Hill at the above link for Nolan’s complete article!
I agree with Nolan that legalization should be the focus.
I have also made a similar observation that during the first two years of the Obama Administration, Democrats could have solved what have become the three most pressing problems on the domestic front:
Legalization;
Dreamer relief; and
An independent U.S. Immigration Court.
Our country and the good folks caught up the in current system are paying the price every day for these failures. But, past is past. The important thing is not to make the same mistakes again if and when the Democrats and whatever “moderate” Republicans still remain get a chance to act.
Hussam F. v. Sessions, 6th Cir., July 27, 2018, published
PANEL: GILMAN, ROGERS, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.
OPINION: Per Curiam
CONCURRING & DISSENTING OPINION: JUDGE RODGERS
KEY QUOTE FROM MAJORITY:
PER CURIAM. Four years ago, Petitioner came to the United States on a K-1 fiancé visa, using a Syrian passport. Although he was a Syrian citizen, his family had fled Syria decades ago to escape persecution. Petitioner therefore had difficulty obtaining a passport from a Syrian consulate in the usual manner, and he instead relied on his father to get a passport for him through unknown contacts in Syria. As it would turn out, however, this was a mistake. The passport was not legitimate; it had been stolen from the Syrian government while blank, andPetitioner’s biographical information was later inscribed without official approval.
When U.S. immigration officials learned of this, they initiated removal proceedings. An immigration judge (“IJ”) concluded that Petitioner was removable, but granted withholding of removal and asylum based on the risk of religious persecution that Petitioner would face if removed to Syria. The IJ also granted him a waiver of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(H),a statute that, if certain eligibility requirements are met, permits waiver of an alien’sinadmissibility due to fraud or misrepresentation. The Government appealed, however, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA” or “Board”) reversed in part. The Board affirmed the grant of withholding, but concluded that Petitioner was not entitled to asylum or to the § 1227(a)(1)(H) waiver. The Board reasoned that he was statutorily ineligible for asylum, and that he did not deserve that form of relief as a matter of the Board’s discretion because heintentionally failed to tell immigration officials about the non-traditional manner in which his passport had been obtained. The Board also concluded that, with respect to the waiver, Petitioner neither met the statutory eligibility requirements nor merited the waiver as a matter ofthe Board’s discretion.
Petitioner now seeks review of the BIA’s decision. As explained below, the Board’sdiscretionary denial of asylum amounted to an abuse of discretion because the Board unreasonably applied its own binding precedent. That precedent dictates that asylum may not be denied solely due to violations of proper immigration procedures, and also that the danger of persecution—which all agree exists in this case—should outweigh all but the most egregious countervailing factors. As for the waiver, by statute courts are generally deprived of jurisdiction to review discretionary determinations such as the denial of a waiver under § 1227(a)(1)(H). This jurisdictional limitation does not apply here, however, because the BIA engaged in de novo review of the IJ’s factual findings, in violation of its regulatory obligation to review those findings only for clear error.
KEY QUOTE FROM DISSENT:
ROGERS, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part. I join parts I, II.A,and II.B of the court’s opinion, but I respectfully dissent with respect to Parts II.C and II.D.
We have no business exercising jurisdiction to review the discretionary aspect of theBIA’s denial of the §1227(a)(1)(H) waiver, where Congress has clearly denied us such jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). In particular, Congress has flatly denied usjurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial, in its discretion, of a waiver under § 1227(a)(1)(H), except for constitutional claims and questions of law. See id. § 1252(a)(2)(D). Calling theBIA’s fact-bound exercise of statutory discretion a legal issue makes the question-of-law exception swallow the rule and amounts to an unwarranted grab of decisional authority. The legal question in this case, according to Petitioner, is whether the Board complied with its regulatory obligation to review the IJ’s fact-finding for clear error. Only in the most technical sense can this be called a question of law. The same technical sense would make a legal issue of virtually any issue on judicial review of agency action, and thereby effectively nullify in its entirety the preclusion of judicial review that Congress enacted.
*****************************************
In my experience, it is rather unusual to see an unsigned majority “per curiam” decision in a published case of this length and complexity, particularly one in which there is a dissent.
I wrote Matter of Kasinga, 21 I&N Dec. 357, 367 (BIA 1996), one of the precedents that the BIA ignored. Although Kasinga is best-known for being the first precedent recognizing “female genital mutilation” (“FGM”) as persecution for asylum purposes, the discretionary point was also quite important. I actually cited it frequently during my years as an Immigration Judge.
Not only did the BIA make numerous legal errors in reversing the ImmigrationJudge’s asylum grant, but the outcome makes no sense from a policy standpoint. The BIA agreed that the respondent was entitled to “withholding of removal” based on a clear probability of persecution. In practical terms, that means he will remain in the U.s. indefinitely, probably for life. But, by denying him asylum, the BIA prevents him from ever qualifying to regularize his status and become a full member of our society. Makes no sense.
To return to one of my recurring themes, I invite everyone to look at the complexity of this case and the effort it took counsel to prepare, including presentation of expert testimony. Even after prevailing before the Immigration Judge, counsel had to defend the victory against a BIA that refused to follow its own precedent favorable to asylum seekers. So, counsel had to appeal to a third level, the Article III Court.
No unrepresented respondent would have any chance of receiving a fair hearing and prevailing on a case of this type. The idea that forcing respondents to proceed in asylum cases without counsel comports with Due Process is little short of preposterous. And a system where the appellate authority, the BIA, can’t be relied upon to give respondents the benefit of its own favorable asylum precedents is certainly badly broken.
We need an independent Article I Immigration Court now! That would be the beginning, but certainly not the end, of fixing a broken system and restoring Due Process and fundamental fairness to immigration adjudications.
It is difficult not to cry (as I did) while listening to the recording of a recent immigration court hearing at a detention facility near the border. The immigration judge addresses a rape victim who fled to this country seeking asylum. She indicates that she does not feel well enough to proceed. When asked by the judge if she had been seen by the jail’s medical unit, the woman responds that she just wants to see her child (who had been forcibly separated from her by ICE), and breaks down crying. The judge is heard telling a lawyer to sit down before he can speak. The woman, still crying, repeats that she just wants to see her child. The immigration judge proceeds to matter-of-factly affirm the finding of DHS denying her the right to apply for asylum. The judge then allows the attorney to speak; he points out for the record that the woman was unable to participate in her own hearing. The judge replies “so noted.” He wishes the woman a safe trip back to the country in which she was raped, and directs her to be brought to the medical unit. He then moves on to the next case on his docket. Neither DHS (in its initial denial) nor the immigration judge (in his affirmance) provided any explanation or reasoning whatsoever for their decisions. According to immigration attorneys who have recently represented asylum seekers near the border, this is the new normal.
Under legislation passed in 1996, most non-citizens seeking entry to the U.S. at airports or borders who are not deemed admissible are subjected to summary removal by DHS without a hearing. However, those who express a fear of harm if returned to their country are detained and subjected to a “credible fear interview” by a USCIS asylum officer. This interview is designed as a screening, not a full-blown application for asylum. The noncitizen being interviewed has just arrived, is detained, often has not yet had the opportunity to consult with a lawyer, probably does not yet know the legal standard for asylum, and has not had the opportunity to compile documentation in support of the claim. Therefore, the law sets what is intended to be a very low standard: the asylum officer need only find that there is a significant possibility that the noncitizen could establish in a full hearing before an immigration judge eligibility for asylum.1
If the asylum officer does not find credible fear to exist, the noncitizen has one chance for review, at a credible fear review hearing before an immigration judge. This is an unusual hearing. Normally, immigration judges are trial-level judges, creating the record of testimony and other evidence, and then entering the initial rulings on deportability and eligibility for relief. But in a credible fear review hearing, the immigration judge also functions as an appellate judge, reviewing the decision of the asylum officer not to vacate an already entered order of removal. The immigration judge either affirms the DHS determination (meaning that the respondent has no right to a hearing, or to file applications for relief, including asylum), or vacates the DHS removal order. There is no further appeal from an immigration judge’s decision regarding credible fear.
Appeal courts do not hear testimony. At the appellate level, it is the lawyers who do all of the talking, arguing why the decision below was or was not correct. The question being considered by the immigration judge in a credible fear review hearing – whether the asylum officer reasonably concluded that there is not a significant possibility that the applicant could establish eligibility for asylum at a full hearing before an immigration judge – is clearly a lawyer question. The noncitizen applicant would not be expected to understand the legal standard.
At the present time, determining the legal standard is especially complicated. In light of the Attorney General’s recent decision in Matter of A-B-, all claims involving members of a particular social group fearing what the A.G. refers to as “private criminal actors” must clearly delineate the particular social group, explain how such group satisfies the requirements of immutability, particularity, and social distinction, meet a heightened standard of showing the government’s inability or unwillingness to protect, and show that internal relocation within the country of nationality is not reasonable.
An experienced immigration lawyer could make these arguments in a matter of minutes, by delineating the group, and explaining what evidence the applicant expects to present to the immigration judge to meet the required criteria.
However, the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge’s Practice Manual states the following:
(C) Representation. — Prior to the credible fear review, the alien may consult with a person or persons of the alien’s choosing. In the discretion of the Immigration Judge, persons consulted may be present during the credible fear review. However, the alien is not represented at the credible fear review. Accordingly, persons acting on the alien’s behalf are not entitled to make opening statements, call and question witnesses, conduct cross examinations, object to evidence, or make closing arguments. (emphasis added).
Therefore, at best, a credible fear review hearing consists of the immigration judge asking the respondent an abbreviated version of the questions already asked and answered by the asylum officer. Often, the judge merely asks if the information told to the asylum officer was true (without necessarily mentioning what the asylum officer notes contain), and if there is anything else they wish to add. If the issue was whether the respondent was believable, this might make sense.2 However, the issue is more often whether the facts will qualify for asylum under current case law.
I have canvassed retired immigration judges, as well as attorneys whose clients have been through such hearings. The good news is that it is the practice of a number of judges (past and present) to allow attorney participation. And in some cases, it is making a difference. One lawyer who recently spent a week in south Texas was allowed by the judge there to make summary arguments on behalf of the respondents; the judge ended up reversing DHS and finding credible fear in all but one case. In Fiscal Year 2016 (the last year for which EOIR has posted such statistics), immigration judges nationally reversed the DHS decision and found credible fear less than 28 percent of the time (i.e. in 2,086 out of 7,488 total cases).
However, other judges rely on the wording of the practice advisory to deny attorneys the right to participate. According to a July 14 CNN article, one lawyer recently had a judge deny 29 out of 29 separated parents claiming credible fear. Another lawyer was quoted in the same article citing a significant increase in credible fear denials since the Attorney General’s decision in A-B- last month. https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/14/politics/sessions-asylum-impact-border/index.html This demonstrates why it is now even more important to allow attorney participation to assist judges in analyzing the facts of the respondent’s case in light of this confusing new decision that many judges are still struggling to interpret. And as I recently reported in a separate blog post, USCIS just recently issued guidelines to its asylum officers to deny credible fear to victims of domestic violence and gang violence under a very wrong interpretation of Sessions’ A-B- decision.
It is hoped that, considering the stakes involved, the Office of the Chief Judge will consider amending its guidelines to ensure the right to meaningful representation in credible fear review hearings.
Notes:
1. It should be noted that when legislation created the “well-founded fear” standard for asylum in 1980, both INS and the BIA seriously misapplied the standard until the Supreme Court corrected them seven years later. Although when it created the “credible fear” standard in the 1990s, INS assured that it would be a low standard, as credible fear determinations may not be appealed, there can be no similar correction by the federal courts.
2. Although credibility is not usually an issue, attorneys point out that while they are merely notes which contain inaccuracies and are generally not read back to the asylum-seeker to allow for correction, the notes are nevertheless often treated as verbatim transcripts by immigration judges.
Copyright Jeffrey S. Chase 2018. All rights reserved.
********************************
Amen, Jeffrey, my friend, colleague, and fellow fighter for Due Process and human rights! Jeffrey[s article was also republished by our good friend and colleague Dan Kowalski in BIBDaily here http://www.bibdaily.com/
Not that the EOIR OCIJ is going to do anything to change the process and further Due Process in the “Age of Sessions.” After all, they all want to hold onto their jobs, at any cost to the unfortunate human beings whose lives are caught up in this charade of a “court system.”
In what kind of “court system” don’t lawyers have a right to represent their clients? The Star Chamber? Kangaroo Court? Clown Court? And, to be fair, this outrageous “advice” from OCIJ on how to deny Due Process and fundamental fairness preceded even Sessions. The well had already been well-poisoned!
But, let’s not forget the real culprits here. First, the spineless Article III Courts who have shirked their duty to intervene and require U.S. Immigration Judges to comply with Due Process, respect human rights and dignity, and use at least a minimum of common sense.
And, the greatest culprit is, of course, Congress, which created this monstrosity and has failed for decades to take the necessary corrective action to comply with our Constitution!
LOS ANGELES — The Trump administration, faced with a public outcry over the separation of migrant families at the Southwest border, has said it is exploring a major expansion of family detention centers. But two of the government’s own medical consultants said this week that they had identified a “high risk of harm” to migrant children housed at such facilities.
A series of 10 investigations over the past four years, conducted during both the Obama and Trump administrations, “frequently revealed serious compliance issues resulting in harm to children,” the two physicians, Scott Allen and Pamela McPherson, said in a letter to the Senate’s Whistleblower Protection Caucus.
The doctors said they had “watched in horror” as migrant children were separated from their families over the past several months in a bid to deter illegal border crossers. But they cautioned that the Trump administration’s fallback position may not be much better.
“The likely alternative — detention of children with a parent — also poses high risk of harm to children and their families,” said the doctors, who currently serve as “subject-matter experts” for the Department of Homeland Security’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. “In our professional opinion, there is no amount of programming that can ameliorate the harms created by the very act of confining children to detention centers.”
The examinations described in their report uncovered problems including a child who lost a third of his body weight and an infant with bleeding of the brain that went undiagnosed for five days.
In a separate filing this week with a court in Los Angeles, lawyers who conducted more than 200 interviews with migrant parents and children said they had collected “shocking and atrocious” reports about conditions at various government-run detention centers, especially at the initial processing centers operated by Customs and Border Protection along the Southwest border.
The interviews in that case were conducted over the past two months, although similar reports of unpleasant and even dangerous conditions in border processing facilities had emerged even before President Trump took office and imposed the current crackdown on the border.
In the latest interviews, migrants reported freezing conditions, filthy toilets, inadequate water and food that alternately was frozen or made them vomit. “The burritos were spoiled,” one wrote. “The ham looked green,” said another.
One woman, identified in the court filing as Lidia, said she and her 4-year-old son had to wait eight hours for water when they arrived at the processing center and were given only frozen sandwiches that could not be eaten. “My son was crying from hunger,” she said.
. . . .
**********************************
Read the rest of Mariam’s article about the shocking degradation of human rights, human dignity, common sense, and moral values being carried out by this Administration, outrageously (and falsely) in the “name of the people.”
We need to both remove unsuitable individuals like Trump, Sessions, and Nielsen from office, and hold them fully accountable for the abuses they are committing! There is nothing that folks like Trump and Sessions fear more than being held accountable for their intentional misconduct! Like all child abusers, they think they can “get away with it.”
CHRISTINA JEWETT AND SHEFALI LUTHRA, REPORT FOR KAISER HEALTH NEWS IN THE TEXAS TRIBUNE:
The Trump administration has summoned at least 70 infants to immigration court for their own deportation proceedings since Oct. 1, according to Justice Department data provided to Kaiser Health News.
These are children who need frequent touching and bonding with a parent and naps every few hours, and some were of breastfeeding age, medical experts say. They’re unable to speak and still learning when it’s day versus night.
“For babies, the basics are really important. It’s the holding, the proper feeding, proper nurturing,” said Shadi Houshyar, who directs early childhood and child welfare initiatives at the advocacy group Families USA.
The number of infants under age 1 involved has been rising — up threefold from 24 infants in the fiscal year that ended last Sept. 30, and 46 infants the year before.
The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one.
The Justice Department data show that a total of 1,500 “unaccompanied” children, from newborns to age 3, have been called in to immigration court since Oct. 1, 2015.
Roughly three-fourths of the children involved are represented by a lawyer and they have to make their case that they should stay in the United States.
Officials who review such deportation cases say most children under 1 cross the border with a parent and their deportation cases proceed together.
But some of the infants were deemed “unaccompanied” only after law enforcement separated them from their parents during the Trump administration’s “zero-tolerance” immigration policy. The children were sent to facilities across the U.S. under the supervision of the Department of Health and Human Services.
“This is to some extent a … crisis of the creation of the government,” said Robert Carey, who previously headed the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which takes custody of unaccompanied minors. “It’s a tragic and ironic turn of events.”
Younger children are also considered unaccompanied if they enter the United States with an older family member who is not yet 18. The data do not clarify which children arrived that way or which were separated from their parents.
The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one.
The Justice Department did not respond to a request for further data about where the children are housed. They could be in a foster care home, in a group home, with a relative or sponsor, or reunited with a parent. HHS, which operates the refugee resettlement office, did not provide comment by publication time.
In previous statements, the government has argued that separation — and its consequences — are unfortunate but unavoidable under the law.
“There is a surefire way to avoid separation from your children. Present yourself legally … or stay back at your home country, and go through the process others do,” HHS Secretary Alex Azar said on a media call earlier this month. “None of us want children separated from their parents. I want no children in our care and custody.”
The number of unaccompanied children called in to court since Oct. 1, 2015, swells to 2,900 if kids up to 5 are included. The total will rise between now and Sept. 30, when the fiscal year ends, noted Susan Long, a statistician at Syracuse University and director of TRAC, a repository of immigration and federal court data. There’s also an ongoing backlog in entering the data.
In June, a district judge in San Diego ordered the government to reunify families within a month, specifically directing them to unite children younger than 5 with parents by July 10.
HHS reunited about half of those children by July 12 — 57 out of 103. Others, the government said, could not be placed with a parent, citing in some cases “serious criminal history” or parents currently being in jail.
In 12 cases, those children’s parents had already been deported. In another, the government had failed to figure out where the child’s parent was located, and in another, the parent had a “communicable disease,” HHS said.
The Department of Homeland Security, which issues the court orders, also did not respond to a request for comment.
The Texas Tribune thanks its sponsors. Become one.
In the removal cases, children have no right to an appointed lawyer, but rather to a list of legal aid attorneys that the child’s current caregiver can contact.
And young children rarely know the details of why they fled their home country, especially without a parent present, noted Eileen Blessinger, a Virginia-based immigration lawyer who has been aiding parents she was connected with through advocates on the Texas-Mexico border.
“Think about it as a parent. You’re not going to tell your child they might be killed, right?” she said. “A lot of the kids don’t know.”
Immigration court, which is an administrative unit of the Department of Justice, is different from typical courts. It handles “respondents” who may be too young to speak, but has no social workers or legal remedies focused on the best interest of a child.
Lenni Benson, a New York Law School professor and founder of the Safe Passage Project, which provides legal services to migrant youth, said she was recently at a large family detention center in Dilley talking to families. She said it’s rare for the families fleeing violence in Central America to bring infants, given the dangers of the journey, which include risks of abduction and a lack of clean water.
“There are people who do that because they are terrified for their child” in the home country, she said.
Benson recounted being in immigration court in 2014 when a judge asked for a crying baby to be removed from the courtroom. She said she paused to inform the judge that the baby was the next respondent on the docket — and asked that the child’s grandmother stand in.
The stakes for the babies, and any migrant fleeing violence, are high, said Paul Wickham Schmidt, a former immigration judge who retired in 2016 after 13 years on the bench in Arlington, Va.
“Final orders of deportation have consequences,” he said. “For something that has a very serious result, this system has been described as death penalty cases in traffic court.”
Ashley Tabaddor, president of the National Association of Immigration Judges and a judge specializing in juvenile cases in Los Angeles, acknowledged that the Trump administration narrowed a directive on how much judges can assist juveniles in court. Still, she said, judges do their best to ensure that young children get a fair hearing.
Justice Department data show that asylum denials are at a nearly 10-year high at 42 percent, and the Associated Press reported that the administration has raised the bar for making a successful case.
At the same time, children can be strapped for resources, Blessinger said.
She described one client whose 7-year-old daughter received legal support from a New York-based charity. Even in that case, she said, the organization acted simply as a “friend of the court” — rather than a full-fledged attorney — requesting delays in proceedings until the child and mother could be reunited. That finally happened Tuesday night, she said.
“It’s the saddest experience. These people are not going to be recovering anytime soon,” she said. “The parents are crying even after they’re reunited.”
Kaiser Health News (KHN) is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.
KHN’s coverage of children’s health care issues is supported in part by a grant from the Heising-Simons Foundation.
*******************************************
Stupid policies driven by biased White Nationalist restrictionists squander judicial time, waste resources, make America look dumb!
Contrary to what HHS Secretary Alex Azar says, presenting oneself at a Port of Entry and applying for asylum has been a guarantee neither of prompt and professional processing of asylum applications nor that there will be no family separation. Indeed, the “credible fear” process has now been “gamed” by Sessions and USCIS so that many legitimate asylum applications are summarily denied and the individuals subjected to expedited removal without appeals. And, to date, several “real” Article III Courts (in particular, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals) have “twiddled their thumbs” and failed to intervene to prevent the gross abuses of Due Process and our international obligations being carried out on a daily basis by this Administration.
Infants in court, real substantive asylum claims rejected without hearings — no wonder the U.S. Immigration Court system is broken and there is no time for “real”cases. The long-term solution might well involve more Immigration Judges and staff. But, at this point, that would be “throwing good money after bad.”
Before there can be expansion, the U.S. Immigration Court system needs to be fixed and returned to its original Due Process focus with Immigration Judges in change and empowered to remove cases like this from the active docket and to sanction Government Attorneys (as well as private attorneys) who waste valuable court time with frivolous litigation. Indeed, Congress did provide Immigration Judges with authority to hold attorneys from both sides in contempt. However, the DOJ has thumbed its nose at that statutory authorization over several Administrations and has never implemented the statute. (This is a good example of what the “rule of law” really means in the USDOJ!)
Removing the Immigration Court system from the Executive Branch is a necessary first step in reforming it to serve its original (and only) purpose: guaranteeing Due Process and fairness for all!
Meanwhile, as pointed out by Christina and Shefali, the damage to the health and welfare children and families might be irreparable.
Here’s Emily Kassie’s short documentary containing actual descriptions from victims and their abusers. Also starring refugee advocates Michele Brane of the Women Refugee Commisson, Barbara Hines, Esq., and others who “blow the whistle” on Sessions’s depraved policies and the unnecessary pain and suffering they are causing!
I Just Simply Did What He Wanted’: Sexual Abuse Inside Immigrant Detention Facilities – Video – NYTimes.com
So, get this! Gonzo, for no particular reason, reverses a well-established, working precedent — agreed upon by all parties, sponsored by DHS, and the product of 15 years of painstaking work by attorneys on both sides — that protected abused women under our refugee laws. This precedent, Matter of A-R-C-G-, actually saved lives and helped some of the most deserving and long-suffering refugees I dealt with in my decades long career enter and contribute to U.S. society. It was a perfect example of how asylum law could and should work to protect the most vulnerable! A “win – win” for the refugees and for our country!
Then, Sessions intentionally creates a system where these already abused refugees are detained and further abused and persecuted in the United States. Then, he returns them (without fair consideration of their claims for protection) to the countries in which they were persecuted to face further abuse, torture, or death.
The problems faced by women in detention were well-known in the Obama Administration. In fact, the Trump Administration immediately abolished the office within DHS that had been established to deal with allegations of sexual abuse. So, this isn’t “mere negligence.” It’s knowing and intentional misconduct! Usually, that results in criminal prosecution or civil liability!
How perverse is Sessions? I’ll go back to Eugene Robinson’s question from a recent blog posted on “courtside:” Why aren’t kidnappers, child abusers, and promoters of sexual abuse like Sessions and his White Nationalist cronies in jail rather than holding high office?https://wp.me/p8eeJm-2O8
WE ARE DIMINISHING OURSELVES AS A NATION, BUT, THAT WON’T STOP HUMAN MIGRATION!
‘Each day is more painful than the last’: Parents separated from kids beg US public for help
A section of the letter to the US people from parents at the Port Isabel Service Detention Center.
(CNN)In an act of sheer desperation, dozens of migrant parents separated from their children wrote an open letter to the US public, hoping someone — anyone — can help get them out of this “nightmare.”
The joint letter, from 54 detainees at the Port Isabel Service Detention Center in Los Fresnos, Texas, said the parents came to save the lives of their children. That their children don’t recognize their voices anymore. That they never expected the trauma they’re enduring.
Here’s the text of the parents’ letter, translated from Spanish:
July 15, 2018
To the United States public:
Please help us. We are desperate parents.
We are not criminals, but we need your help.
We came to this country to save our lives and the lives of our children. We were not prepared for the nightmare that we faced here. The United States government, kidnapped our children with tricks and didn’t give us the opportunity to say goodbye.
It’s been more than a month and we haven’t been told much about our children. They are living in places with strangers. We’ve been told that some children are living with new families. Each day is more painful that the last.
Many of us have only spoken with our children once when we have the opportunity to speak with them (which is very difficult because the social worker never answers.) The children cry, they don’t recognize our voices and they feel abandoned and unloved. This makes us feel dead in life. Even with all this trauma, nightmares, anguish and pain that this government is imposing on us and our children, we still have to fight for our asylum cases. But the government doesn’t give us the opportunity to fight our cases and the judges don’t give us the opportunity to speak up.
The asylum official is denying nearly all cases and so are the judges. They don’t give us an opportunity to explain why we came here. We also feel pressured to sign for our deportation as a quick means to reunite with our children.
We feel like there is no way out of this nightmare because the asylum officials and the judges are against us.
Please help us and bring justice to Texas!
Letter translated by CNN’s Rosa Flores.
*********************************
Each day, Jeff Sessions mocks our legal system, degrades America as a country, and each of us as human beings! As those he persecutes appear more human, we are dehumanized by allowing Sessions to continue his program of child abuse!
LOS FRESNOS, Texas (AP) — Patricia Aragon told the U.S. asylum officer at her recent case assessment that she was fleeing her native Honduras because she had been robbed and raped by a gang member who threatened to kill her and her 9-year-old daughter if she went to the police.
Until recently, the 41-year-old seamstress from San Pedro Sula would have had a good chance of clearing that first hurdle in the asylum process due to a “credible fear” for her safety, but she didn’t. The officer said the Honduran government wasn’t to blame for what happened to Aragon and recommended that she not get asylum, meaning she’ll likely be sent home.
“The U.S. has always been characterized as a humanitarian country,” Aragon said through tears at Port Isabel, a remote immigration detention center tucked among livestock and grapefruit groves near Los Fresnos, a town about 15 miles (25kilometers) from the Mexico border. “My experience has been very difficult.”
As part of the Trump administration’s broader crackdown on immigration, Attorney General Jeff Sessions recently tightened the restrictions on the types of cases that can qualify someone for asylum, making it harder for Central Americans who say they’re fleeing the threat of gangs, drug smugglers or domestic violence to pass even the first hurdle for securing U.S. protection.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions has overturned protections for asylum seekers in a decision that could affect thousands. Sessions ruled that a 2014 Board of Immigration Appeals decision that protected domestic violence victims from Central America was wrongly decided. Under the new ruling, “the applicant must show that the government condoned the private actions or demonstrated an inability to protect the victims,” in order to qualify for asylum protection. Asylum was never meant to alleviate all problems, even all serious problems, that people face every day all over the world. I will be issuing a decision that restores sound principles of asylum and long-standing principles of immigration law.
Immigration lawyers say that’s meant more asylum seekers failing interviews with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to establish credible fear of harm in their home countries. They also say that immigration judges, who work for the Justice Department, are overwhelmingly signing off on those recommendations during appeals, effectively ending what could have been a yearslong asylum process almost before it’s begun.
“This is a direct, manipulated attack on the asylum process,” said Sofia Casini of the Austin nonprofit Grassroots Leadership, which has been working with immigrant women held at the nearby T. Don Hutto detention center who were separated from their kids under a widely condemned policy that President Donald Trump ended on June 20.
Casini said that of the roughly 35 separated mothers her group worked with, more than a third failed their credible fear interviews, which she said is about twice the failure rate of before the new restrictions took effect. Nationally, more than 2,000 immigrant children and parents have yet to be reunited, including Aragon and her daughter, who is being held at a New York children’s shelter and whose future is as unclear as her mother’s.
In order to qualify for asylum, seekers must demonstrate that they have a well-founded fear they’ll be persecuted back home based on their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinions. The interviews with USCIS asylum officers, which typically last 30 to 60 minutes, are sometimes done by phone. Any evidence asylum seekers present to support their claims must be translated into English, and they often don’t have lawyers present.
. . . .
“The asylum officer conducting credible fear (interviews) has been instructed to apply A.B., so when the person says, ‘My boyfriend or my husband beat me’ it’s, ‘So what, you lose,'” said Paul W. Schmidt, a former immigration judge in Arlington, Virginia, who retired in 2016. “It then goes to the immigration judge, who has just been ordered to follow Sessions’ precedent — and most of them want to keep their jobs and they just rubber stamp it, and there’s no meaningful appeal.”
. . . .
**************************************
Read the full article at the link.
The now long forgotten “EOIR Vision” developed by our Executive Group in the late 1990s was “To be the world’s best administrative tribunals guaranteeing fairness and due process for all.”
Under Sessions, the U.S. Immigration Courts have been converted into kangaroo courts that are a parody of Due Process and fairness. Since the Immigration Courts are one of the foundations upon which the U.S. Justice System rests, that doesn’t bode well for justice or the future of our country as a Constitutional democratic republic.
Do not misbehave. Do not sit on the floor. Do not share your food. Do not use nicknames. Also, it is best not to cry. Doing so might hurt your case.
Lights out by 9 p.m. and lights on at dawn, after which make your bed according to the step-by-step instructions posted on the wall. Wash and mop the bathroom, scrubbing the sinks and toilets. Then it is time to form a line for the walk to breakfast.
“You had to get in line for everything,” recalled Leticia, a girl from Guatemala.
Small, slight and with long black hair, Leticia was separated from her mother after they illegally crossed the border in late May. She was sent to a shelter in South Texas — one of more than 100 government-contracted detention facilities for migrant children around the country that are a rough blend of boarding school, day care center and medium security lockup. They are reserved for the likes of Leticia, 12, and her brother, Walter, 10.
The facility’s list of no-no’s also included this: Do not touch another child, even if that child is your hermanito or hermanita — your little brother or sister.
Leticia had hoped to give her little brother a reassuring hug. But “they told me I couldn’t touch him,” she recalled.
In response to an international outcry, President Trump recently issued an executive order to end his administration’s practice, first widely put into effect in May, of forcibly removing children from migrant parents who had entered the country illegally. Under that “zero-tolerance” policy for border enforcement, thousands of children were sent to holding facilities, sometimes hundreds or thousands of miles from where their parents were being held for criminal prosecution.
But more than 2,800 children — some of them separated from their parents, some of them classified at the border as “unaccompanied minors” — remain in these facilities, where the environments range from impersonally austere to nearly bucolic, save for the fact that the children are formidably discouraged from leaving and their parents or guardians are nowhere in sight.
Depending on several variables, including happenstance, a child might be sent to a 33-acre youth shelter in Yonkers that features picnic tables, sports fields and even an outdoor pool. “Like summer camp,” said Representative Eliot L. Engel, a Democrat of New York who recently visited the campus.
Or that child could wind up at a converted motel along a tired Tucson strip of discount stores, gas stations and budget motels. Recreation takes place in a grassless compound, and the old motel’s damaged swimming pool is covered up.
Image
Migrant children in a recreation area at a shelter in Brownsville, Tex.CreditLoren Elliott/Reuters
Still, some elements of these detention centers seem universally shared, whether they are in northern Illinois or South Texas. The multiple rules. The wake-up calls and the lights-out calls. The several hours of schooling every day, which might include a civics class in American history and laws, though not necessarily the ones that led to their incarceration.
Most of all, these facilities are united by a collective sense of aching uncertainty — scores of children gathered under a roof who have no idea when they will see their parents again.
Leticia wrote letters from the shelter in South Texas to her mother, who was being held in Arizona, to tell her how much she missed her. She would quickly write these notes after she had finished her math worksheets, she said, so as not to violate yet another rule: No writing in your dorm room. No mail.
She kept the letters safe in a folder for the day when she and her mother would be reunited, though that still hasn’t happened. “I have a stack of them,” she said.
Another child asked her lawyer to post a letter to her detained mother, since she had not heard from her in the three weeks since they had been separated.
“Mommy, I love you and adore you and miss you so much,” the girl wrote in curvy block letters. And then she implored: “Please, Mom, communicate. Please, Mom. I hope that you’re OK and remember, you are the best thing in my life.”
The complicated matters of immigration reform and border enforcement have vexed American presidents for at least two generations. The Trump administration entered the White House in 2017 with a pledge to end the problems, and for several months, it chose one of the harshest deterrents ever employed by a modern president: the separation of migrant children from their parents.
This is what a few of those children will remember.
No Touching, No Running
Diego Magalhães, a Brazilian boy with a mop of curly brown hair, spent 43 days in a Chicago facility after being separated from his mother, Sirley Paixao, when they crossed the border in late May. He did not cry, just as he had promised her when they parted. He was proud of this. He is 10.
He spent the first night on the floor of a processing center with other children, then boarded an airplane the next day. “I thought they were taking me to see my mother,” he said. He was wrong.
Once in Chicago, he was handed new clothes that he likened to a uniform: shirts, two pairs of shorts, a sweatsuit, boxers and some items for hygiene. He was then assigned to a room with three other boys, including Diogo, 9, and Leonardo, 10, both from Brazil.
The three became fast friends, going to class together, playing lots of soccer and earning “big brother” status for being good role models for younger children. They were rewarded the privilege of playing video games.
There were rules. You couldn’t touch others. You couldn’t run. You had to wake up at 6:30 on weekdays, with the staff making banging noises until you got out of bed.
“You had to clean the bathroom,” Diego said. “I scrubbed the bathroom. We had to remove the trash bag full of dirty toilet paper. Everyone had to do it.”
Diego and the 15 other boys in their unit ate together. They had rice and beans, salami, some vegetables, the occasional pizza, and sometimes cake and ice cream. The burritos, he said, were bad.
Apart from worrying about when he would see his mother again, Diego said that he was not afraid, because he always behaved. He knew to watch for a staff member “who was not a good guy.” He had seen what happened to Adonias, a small boy from Guatemala who had fits and threw things around.
“They applied injections because he was very agitated,” Diego said. “He would destroy things.”
A person he described as “the doctor” injected Adonias in the middle of a class, Diego said. “He would fall asleep.”
Diego managed to stay calm, in part because he had promised his mother he would. Last week, a federal judge in Chicago ordered that Diego be reunited with his family. Before he left, he made time to say goodbye to Leonardo.
“We said ‘Ciao, good luck,” Diego recalled. “Have a good life.”
But because of the rules, the two boys did not hug.
. . . .
*****************************************
Read the full story at the link.
This is America in the age of Trump & Sessions. A few of these kids might get to stay in the U.S. Most will be returned (with little or no Due Process) to countries will they will be targeted, harassed, brutalized, extorted, impressed, and/or perhaps killed by gangs that operate more or less with impunity from weak and corrupt police and governments. Indeed, contrary to the false blathering of Sessions & co., gangs and cartels are the “de facto government” in some areas of the Norther Triangle. Those kids that survive to adulthood will have these memories of the United States and how we treated them at their time of most need.
VICTORVILLE — Immigration detainees who were sent to a federal prison here last month were kept in their cells for prolonged periods with little access to the outside and were unable to change their clothing for weeks, according to workers at the facility and visitors who have spoken with detainees.
Staffers at the prison also say they have not been given the proper resources or direction to handle the influx of detainees, putting those in custody as well as workers in danger.
“We’re putting out fires, just like we were doing before,” said a worker who asked not to be identified for fear of retaliation. “But it’s gone from bad to worse to worst. We cannot take care of these inmates.”
The Victorville Federal Correctional Complex is a sprawling federal prison in San Bernardino County that houses thousands of inmates who have been convicted of crimes in federal courts.
By contrast, the immigrants who have been sent there are considered “civil” rather than criminal detainees, meaning they are being held pending the outcome of their immigration cases. Some are asylum seekers; some are fathers who were separated from their children in recent months.
They were sent to the prison in June as part of the Trump administration’s policy of increasingly detaining asylum seekers and immigrants who are in the country illegally until their cases are decided. Federal officials have said using prisons to hold the detainees is a stopgap measure while officials find more holding space.
Officials with the Federal Bureau of Prisons say the facility had beds available because of a decline in the inmate population in recent years, and that it has managed the new population using existing staff, some of whom were reassigned from other facilities.
But workers and people who have been able to visit the detainees say the prison was seriously unprepared for its new role.
The prison, which workers have long complained was short-staffed, is now scrambling to care for hundreds of new detainees from around the world with language, medical and care needs that are very different from those of typical federal prisoners, workers say.
The situation has raised concern among Democratic and Republican lawmakers.
In late June, Rep. Paul Cook (R-Yucca Valley) wrote a letter to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Bureau of Prisons urging officials to increase staffing levels at Victorville to match the increase in population.
“Furthermore, I urge ICE to support and train [prison] staff so they are properly equipped to implement policies and procedures that may be unfamiliar to them when dealing with immigration detainees,” Cook wrote.
Rep. Mark Takano (D-Riverside), who visited the facility July 2, said he saw numerous signs that the prison was struggling to meet detainees’ needs.
“Every detainee group that we met said they had not had a change in clothes since they arrived on June 8. Their bedding had not been switched. They were wearing the same underwear,” Takano said.
Thirteen of the detainees who spoke with Takano and his staff were fathers who had been separated from their children. The men said they had been unable to speak with their children since arriving at the facility.
Detainees also complained of not getting enough food, of being “locked up for long periods of time in their cells” and having very limited access to the outdoors, Takano said.
Prison officials showed Takano a recreation area that he said was nicely equipped. But when he asked one group of detainees whether they were able to use that room, they told him they had been there only once, he said.
“That’s an indicator to me that the prison was not ramped up to be able to accommodate this incursion of detainees. They were understaffed before the detainees arrived, and the arrival of 1,000 detainees I think has fully stressed the staff’s ability to be able to safely oversee their health and safety,” Takano said.
Nearly 1,000 immigration detainees were initially transferred to the prison. As of this week, 656 remained, said ICE spokeswoman Lori Haley.
The complex includes a high-security prison, two medium-security prisons and a minimum-security camp. The detainees are being housed in one of the medium-security prisons. Visits to the facility are tightly controlled.
Workers say one of their biggest concerns is the lack of staff and resources to adequately handle detainees’ medical needs.
There have been three cases of chickenpox and about 40 scabies cases since the detainees arrived.
One worker who spoke to The Times on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation said medical workers are stretched so thin they can address only detainees’ most urgent needs.
“We’re not finding illness because we are so rushed,” the worker said. “As patients, they’re not getting the care they need.”
After Takano’s visit, the worker said, detainees were given a change of clothing — but for many of them it was paper gowns normally reserved for inmates with specific medical needs.
Eva Bitran, an attorney for the ACLU who has met with two detainees at the facility, said both men told her they had struggled to get medical care.
One man told her about a button that detainees could push for emergency medical care. When that button was pushed, they were asked: “Are you being raped or are you dying?” When the answer was no, no help would come, the man told her.
One detainee who has since left the facility told The Times that he and others in his unit were locked in their cells for most of the day for the two weeks he was at the prison, with food passed through a small opening in the door.
The man said he was not given a change of clothes during the 14 days he was at the facility and was not able to bathe for the first four days.
In late June, the ACLU sued the Department of Homeland Security and the Bureau of Prisons on behalf of detainees, saying they had been held “incommunicado,” asking the court to order the prison to allow lawyer visits and phone calls.
U.S. District Judge Otis D. Wright II sided with the ACLU and granted a temporary restraining order June 21 requiring the prison to allow detainees to communicate with immigration attorneys and attend “know your rights” workshops.
Haley, the ICE spokeswoman, referred questions about conditions at the prison to the Bureau of Prisons and said ICE was deferring to that agency’s standards on questions of things such as access to time outside of cells and outdoors time.
In an email response to questions from The Times, Bureau of Prisons officials said, “[D]etainees have regular inside and outside recreational opportunities.”
Officials also said that since the detainees’ arrival, 25 medical staff members had been temporarily assigned to help with intake screenings, physical exams and general care.
Regarding the chickenpox and scabies cases, officials said the facility was “taking the necessary precautionary measures to protect staff, inmates and detainees, and the community, from the possibility of being exposed.”
John Kostelnik, president of the American Federation of Government Employees Local 3969, which represents workers at the prison, said that although some medical staffers were briefly assigned to help with the detainees, it was far from enough to meet the need.
He said many problems stem from a lack of direction from officials about how to reconcile standards that are common to federal prisons but aren’t necessarily appropriate for immigration detainees.
“We’re still day by day, making things up as we go,” he said.
As the facility has received increasing scrutiny from political leaders, legal groups and others following the transfer of detainees, Kostelnik said, some things appear to be improving — such as more uniforms.
But the staff is still overtaxed, said Kostelnik, who worries about what might happen if bigger changes don’t come fast enough.
“You have this group of detainees that are starting to get upset,” he said. “You get a large group of individuals that are upset, you have the potential for anything.”
(CNN)Authorities are investigating after an ICE detainee facing possible deportation apparently killed himself.
Efrain De La Rosa, 40, was found unresponsive in a cell at the Stewart Detention Center in Lumpkin, Georgia, on Tuesday night and was later pronounced dead at a hospital, Immigration and Customs Enforcement said.
The apparent cause of death was self-inflicted strangulation, the agency said Thursday, adding that the case is under investigation.
De La Rosa, a Mexican national, was in removal proceedings at the time of his death, ICE said.
The Georgia Bureau of Investigation is investigating the death at the request of the local sheriff. There is no indication of foul play, GBI Special Agent in Charge Danny Jackson said.
A preliminary investigation revealed De La Rosa was alone in an isolation cell at the detention center when officials there found him, Jackson said.
It was not immediately clear why De La Rosa had been placed in isolation.
ICE spokesman Bryan Cox said he could not provide additional comment because an agency review of the death is ongoing.
Amanda Gilchrist, a spokeswoman for CoreCivic, which owns and operates the facility, said the company is fully cooperating with investigators but declined to comment further because of the active investigation.
De La Rosa is the eighth detainee to die in ICE custody in the 2018 fiscal year, the agency said.
De La Rosa’s death comes less than six months after the death of another ICE detainee who had been in custody at Stewart.
Yulio Castro Garrido, a 33-year-old Cuban national, was diagnosed with pneumonia at Stewart and was hospitalized as his condition worsened. He died in January at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Florida.
And in May 2017, Jean Jimenez-Joseph, a 27-year-old Panamanian national, killed himself in solitary confinement at Stewart.
Immigrant rights groups swiftly criticized the facility as word of De La Rosa’s death spread.
“The deaths and systematic abuse at Stewart are not only tragic, but infuriating,” said Azadeh Shahshahani, legal and advocacy director at Project South.
ICE said it is conducting an agency-wide review of De La Rosa’s death and “is firmly committed to the health and welfare of all those in its custody.”
Four Democratic senators are calling for an investigation into the treatment of pregnant women detained in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities, following a BuzzFeed News report on several women who said they were mistreated while in immigration detention.
The letter to the Department of Homeland Security Acting Inspector General John Kelly, sent Friday, cites BuzzFeed News’ reporting on the conditions pregnant women in ICE and Customs and Border Patrol custody have faced under the Trump administration, particularly following a new policy issued in December allowing pregnant women to be detained. Under the Obama administration, ICE was ordered to release pregnant women past their first trimester from custody.
“Recent reports cite the inadequate care that pregnant women receive while in ICE custody, pregnant women’s lack of access to medical care, and their heightened vulnerability to sexual assault,” the letter reads. “Given the multiple findings of harmful and substandard conditions of detention for this particularly vulnerable population, we ask that you open an investigation into the treatment and care of pregnant women in ICE detention facilities.”
The letter was organized by Sen. Kamala Harris and signed by fellow Democratic Sens. Patty Murray, Maggie Hassan, and Tom Carper. A spokesperson for Harris’s office told BuzzFeed News that Harris was working “with a group of senators on legislative options to address this as well.”
In a story published Monday, BuzzFeed News related the stories of three women who had miscarriages while in the custody of ICE and Customs and Border Patrol and said they did not receive adequate medical care while pregnant or miscarrying. One woman told BuzzFeed News she was physically abused by CBP officials. All three said they bled for days without medical care and all said they were shackled while pregnant at some point during their detention. Shackling pregnant women is prohibited by ICE’s and CBP’s most recent standards-of-care policies, as well as by a congressional directive.
The report also included interviews with 11 legal, medical, and advocacy workers who work with pregnant detainees in or near detention centers, as well as two affidavits signed under “penalty of perjury” in which a fourth woman described being given clothes so small for her pregnant belly they gave her welts and “pain in [her] uterus.” A fifth woman said she underwent repeated X-rays, despite this being against the Food and Drug Administration’s recommendations and against CBP’s(but not ICE’s) policies for pregnant women.
“Pregnant women have repeatedly described the fear, uncertainty, and exhaustion they experience as a result of being detained,” the senators wrote in Friday’s letter. “Detained pregnant women have stated they experience routine mistreatment, including malnutrition, inadequate bedding, insufficient access to basic medical care, lack of privacy regarding their medical history, and even shackling during transportation for medical care.”
The senators’ letter said there was a 35% increase in the number of pregnant women detained by ICE in the fiscal year of 2017 compared to the year before, under the Obama administration. During that year, ICE detained nearly 68,000 women, 525 of whom were pregnant, the letter stated, and an additional 590 between December 2017, when the policy change was issued, and April 2018.
In June, Harris toured Otay Mesa Detention center, where the three women BuzzFeed News spoke with were held while miscarrying. There, Harris met with mothers who had been separated from their children as a result of the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy, which has triggered national outrage, court cases, and an executive order from President Trump.
****************************************
These human beings aren’t “inmates”
They “civil detainees”
Their only “crime” is seeking asylum under U.S. and international law
Their only mistake: believing that the United States is a nation of laws and human decency, not just another “Banana Republic” as it has become under Trump & Sessions
The solution: regime change
Another thought: The problems in civil immigration detention were well-known and well-documented before Sessions and his cronies established the “New American Gulag” to punish, duress, and deter asylum seekers:
Shouldn’t that result in eventual successful suits against Sessions for ethical violations and for civil damages for intentionally violating the Due Process rights of asylum seekers?
The privatization of ICE detention centers has exacerbated the problems the bureau faces and has given considerable fodder to media exposes of abuses. The DHS Office of Inspector General recently released a scathing report on failures of the private contractors to comply with detention standards. It’s time to restructure the responsibilities to administer detention and removal policies more humanely.
To its credit, ICE also performs critical assignments that include investigating foreign nationals who violate the laws. The main categories of crimes its agents investigate are suspected terrorism, criminal acts, suspected fraudulent activities (i.e., possessing or manufacturing fraudulent immigration documents) and suspected smuggling and trafficking of foreign nationals. ICE investigators are housed in the Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) component and are among those who would dismantle ICE.
If ICE is not at the border performing critical background checks and national security screenings, who does? First, the State Department consular officers screen all foreign nationals requesting a visa, employing biometric technologies along with biographic background checks. In some high-risk consulates abroad, ICE assists in national security screenings. Then, DHS Customs and Border Protection (CBP) inspectors examine all foreign nationals who seek admission to the United States at ports of entry. CBP inspectors and consular officials partner with the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) to utilize the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment on known and suspected terrorists and terrorist groups.
They also check the background of all foreign nationals in biometric and biographic databases such the FBI’s Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System. Improvements in intelligence-gathering, along with advances in technologies and inter-agency sharing, have greatly enhanced the rigor of our national security screenings.
The most effective policy for interior immigration enforcement would be one prioritizing “quality of life” enforcement. As I have written elsewhere, it would be aimed at protecting U.S. residents from the deleterious and criminal aspects of immigration. Foremost, it would involve the investigation and removal of foreign nationals who have been convicted of crimes and who are deportable, thus maintaining the important activities of the current ICE investigators.
“Quality of life” enforcement, furthermore, would prioritize investigations of specific work sites for wage, hour and safety violations, sweatshop conditions and trafficking in persons — all illegal activities to which unauthorized workers are vulnerable. “Quality of life” enforcement also would encompass stringent labor market tests (e.g., labor certifications and attestations) to ensure that U.S. workers are not adversely affected by the recruitment of foreign workers, as well as reliable employment verification systems. Many of these functions once were performed by the Department of Labor (DOL), before funding cuts gutted its enforcement duties.
Prioritizing these functions likely would go a long way toward curbing unauthorized migration. Whether DOL or a revamped immigration enforcement be the lead on “quality of life” measures remains a key management question. There is a strong case for re-establishing DOL’s traditional role in protecting U.S. workers and certifying the hiring of foreign workers. Given the critical role that ICE investigators play, it is imperative that they be housed in an agency that provides them with adequate support. These are finer points that can be resolved as the functions are reorganized.
Including a multi-pronged agency or agencies charged with ensuring “quality of life” immigration enforcement measures as part of a package of immigration reforms would only increase the strong public support (roughly two-thirds favor) for comprehensive immigration reform. Good policy. Good politics.
Ruth Ellen Wasem is a clinical professor of policy at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, the University of Texas in Austin. For more than 25 years, she was a domestic policy specialist at the U.S. Library of Congress’ Congressional Research Service. She has testified before Congress about asylum policy, legal immigration trends, human rights and the push-pull forces on unauthorized migration. She is writing a book about the legislative drive to end race- and nationality-based immigration.
*******************************************
Hit the above link to read Ruth’s entire article over at The Hill.
I believe that both Nolan Rappaport and I have previously noted the importance of better wage and hour enforcement in preventing employer abuse of both the legal and extra-legal immigration systems. Sure make lots more sense than “busting” hard-working, productive members of our community who have the bad fortune to be here without documents in an era of irrational enforcement!
There are lots of “smart immigration enforcement” options out there. Although the Obama Administration for the most part screwed up immigration policy, toward the end they actually were coming around to some of the “smart enforcement” initiatives, particularly with DACA at USCIS and more consistent and widespread use of prosecutorial discretion (“PD”) at ICE.
Naturally, the Trump Administration abandoned all of the “smart” initiatives started by the Obama Administration and instead doubled down on every cruel, ineffective, and just plain stupid policy from the past. But, that’s because it’s never been about law enforcement or developing a rational immigration policy. It’s really all about racism and White Nationalism. This Administration, representing a minority of Americans, has absolutely no interest in democracy or governing for the common good.
That’s why it’s critical for the rest of us, who want no part of White Nationalist Nation, to begin the process for “regime change” at the ballot box this Fall! And, in the meantime, join the New Due Process Army and fight the horrible excesses and intentionally ugly policies of the Trumpsters!
Surprised by vehement public reaction, President Donald Trump has decreed an end to the policy of separating arriving asylum seekers from their children. But what now? Not what will Trump do — his latest pronouncements simply up the ante on mean-spiritedness, with little clarity on a specific policy direction. But what asylum reforms should progressives push for to build a humane, workable, and sustainable program?
The policy problem is real. The flow of asylum seekers from Central America has not noticeably abated even during the administration’s imposition of cruelties. The current adjudication system has been overwhelmed — both the asylum officers in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the immigration judges in the Department of Justice (DOJ). Claims in both venues, from all nationalities, have seen sharp rises over the past five years, and backlogs have mushroomed.
DHS, which was keeping up with asylum claims as recently as 2011, now has more than 300,000 pending cases. Immigration judges, whose ranks number roughly 350 at present, have an astounding backlog of 700,000 cases. The resulting picture of dysfunction provides continual fodder for anti-immigration demagogues.
Progressives need to pay close attention to that last observation, because we are in danger of overplaying the righteous reaction to the horrors of child separation. Our nation needs to remain firmly committed to the institution of political asylum. But opportunistic or abusive claims are unfortunately numerous in the current caseload, particularly among people who seek asylum after having been in the United States for a while.
And any realistic migration management regime will have to keep in its toolbox the selective detention of asylum seekers, especially in times of high influx. We need to figure out what form our detention and release system will take.
So, yes, we need to call attention to the cruelty of the Trump administration’s policies. But we also need to bring the system back under control. Control is a precondition for regaining durable public support for the institution of political asylum in a world characterized by unprecedented migration pressures. Extreme-right politicians are exaggerating the scale of illegal immigration and unwarranted asylum seeking, and not just in the US. Getting this right will help take away from the authoritarians one of their most potent rhetorical weapons: immigration alarmism.
A precedent for a solution
Fortunately, we do have a solid model for how to repair our system: Today’s overload is surprisingly similar to an administrative meltdown faced in the early 1990s. Regulatory and operational reforms in 1995 brought that asylum situation under control, while preserving due process and avoiding widespread detention. The result was 15 years of reasonably efficient operation and blessedly few hot political controversies over asylum. We can rebuild that system; doing so won’t resolve all the problems we face, but it is an indispensable ingredient.
We still face some tough questions — notably about how far our asylum system can go in protecting against private violence in Central America, including from gangs and abusive family members. As a polity with a proud history of providing refuge, we face some hard choices. But however those choices are resolved, we can and should immediately expand aid designed to reduce violence in the source countries. That would go some way toward reducing refugee flows.
How our two-track asylum system works
To understand the history of reform successes and failures, we need first a map of the rather complex structure of agencies involved in asylum processing, and of the two primary pipelines by which applications are received. Bear with me, because the differences, though technical, are important as we think about reforms.
A person already in the United States, legally or illegally, who fears persecution back in the home country, can file for asylum directly with the Department of Homeland Security. These “affirmative claims,” so-called because the person takes the initiative to file without any enforcement action pending, are initially heard in an office interview conducted by expert asylum officers, housed in eight regional offices.
Based on the completed application and a nonadversarial office interview, asylum officers can grant or deny asylum, but when asylum is denied, they have no authority to issue a removal order.
That step requires an immigration judge — a specially selected DOJ attorney, appointed by the attorney general, who conducts removal proceedings. Until 1995, there was no routine for putting unsuccessful affirmative applicants into immigration court. It was up to the district field office of the immigration agency to file charges; many offices didn’t see these cases as a priority, at a time when the enforcement system had far lower funding than today. If the district office did serve a charging document, the person could renew the asylum claim in immigration court, and the judge would decide it afresh.
Now for the second main pipeline. People who are already in removal proceedings when they first seek asylum — people apprehended after crossing the border, for instance, or picked up by DHS after a local arrest for disorderly conduct — cannot file with the asylum office. Instead, they present their applications directly to the immigration court. A successful claim there constitutes a defense to removal; hence these applications are known as “defensive claims.”
For both defensive claimants and those affirmative claimants who have renewed their claims in court, the immigration judge considers the case through a formal courtroom procedure. He or she can grant asylum, but if asylum is denied, the judge normally issues a removal order — the kind of document needed for DHS to put the applicant on a bus or plane home (though appeal opportunities exist).
Border cases, as mentioned, are almost all heard as defensive claims, assuming applicants pass an initial, speedy “credible fear” screening done by an asylum officer, which is meant to weed out clearly meritless cases. (Over the past eight years, between 15 and 30 percent have been screened out this way.)
In the 1990s the system was also overwhelmed. We brought it back under control.
Back to the dysfunction I mentioned in the early 1990s. The expert corps of asylum officers, which had been created only in 1990, was overwhelmed by an accelerating volume of asylum claims, many of them containing near-identical boilerplate stories about threats, mostly crafted by high-volume “immigration consultants.” At the time, the regulations provided that nearly all asylum applicants received authorization to work in the US shortly after filing.
That created an incentive to file a false asylum claim — as did the slim chance, during that period, that an applicant would end up in immigration court. The system’s obvious disorder and vulnerability to escalating fraud worried refugee assistance organizations, who rightly feared that Congress, then beginning to consider tough immigration enforcement bills (ultimately enacted in 1996), would impose draconian limitations on asylum unless the administration brought the situation under control.
Government agencies worked closely with NGOs to analyze the situation and draw up a balanced solution. (I worked on the design and implementation of the reforms as a consultant to the Justice Department and later as general counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, a.k.a. INS.) Two key changes in asylum regulations were the result. The first made it virtually automatic that affirmative asylum claimants whose claims were rejected by the asylum officer would be placed into removal proceedings.
Under the 1995 regs, when applicants return to the asylum office a few weeks after their interview to get the result, nearly all receive either an asylum grant or a fully effective charging document placing them in removal proceedings, normally with a specific date to appear in immigration court.
Second, the reform decoupled the act of filing for asylum from work authorization. The applicant would get that benefit from the asylum officer only if granted asylum. Those applicants who failed and were referred on to immigration court would similarly have to prove their asylum claim on the merits to gain permission to work.
But as a mechanism to minimize hardship and induce timely decisions, applicants would also receive work authorization if the immigration judge did not resolve the case within six months of the initial filing. (Applicants could also request delays, for example to gather more evidence, but such a request would suspend the running of the “asylum clock” and thus extend the six-month deadline for the issuance of work authorization).
To meet that processing deadline, the Clinton administration secured funding to double the number of immigration judges, from roughly 100 to 200, and also built up the asylum officer corps. New target timetables were established, and the new system met them with few exceptions: An asylum officer decision within 60 days, and an immigration judge decision within six months from initial filing (the latter also applies to purely defensive claims).
Finally, to maximize the immediate impact, the asylum offices and immigration courts adopted a last-in, first-out scheduling policy for judging claims. That sent the signal that new bogus claims would not slip through and get work authorization under the six-month rule, simply because of case backlogs. The older filers, already carrying a work authorization card, would take lower priority.
These reforms dramatically changed the calculus of potential affirmative applicants. Weak or opportunistic filings would no longer lead to work authorization; additionally, they would mean a quick trip to immigration court and a likely removal order. People responded to the new incentives. Asylum filings with the immigration authorities declined from more than 140,000 in 1993 to a level between 27,000 and 50,000 for virtually every year from 1998 through 2013. That annual filing rate was a manageable level, logistically and politically.
Congress had been poised to crack down on asylum in 1996 as part of a general tightening of immigration laws but, impressed by the already visible reductions, rejected most of the restrictive asylum proposals and instead made the administrative changes permanent by enacting them into law.
The seeds of the current crisis were planted around 2012, in a period of budgetary contraction. Neither Congress nor the executive branch appreciated how crucial it was to reach decisions in immigration court within six months and thereby prevent work authorization to unqualified asylum applicants. That had been the system’s main (and highly effective) deterrent to opportunistic, weak, or bogus claims. Hiring slowed even as caseloads and duties expanded, including the beginnings of the Central American surge. As more and more applicants began to receive work authorization without an asylum grant on the merits, affirmative applications poured in.
With the added filings, immigration court docketing fell further behind, reaching four-year delays in some locations. Much as in 1993, it was a vicious circle. Unscrupulous “consultants” could once again guarantee work authorization to their clients based just on filing, albeit after six months, with no immigration judge hearing expected for years. In 2017, affirmative filings with the asylum office climbed back above 140,000.
A 1995-style fix today would help us mainly to deter weak affirmative asylum claims. But it would still be quite relevant to the Central American applicants reaching our borders, even though they will normally file defensively. This is because so much of the paralyzing immigration court backlog stems from the massive increase in affirmative applicant numbers over the past five years. Reducing overall intake is central to getting both tracks of the asylum process under control.
Concrete steps to fix the problems
Undocumented immigrants released in El Paso, Texas pending an asylum hearing, June 24. All had been separated from their children.Joe Raedle/Getty Images
There are four primary components in a realistic strategy to restore our asylum machinery to health. We should:
1) Rebuild the capacity for prompt asylum decisions by strategically deploying existing staff and urgently adding more. It is obvious that the system needs a major influx of new asylum officers and immigration judges. Hiring is underway and budgets are growing significantly, though not fast enough. The administration still feels a need for more dramatic immediate deterrents, apparently believing that a full catch-up to the existing caseload will take years.
But a here-and-now impact can be had by following the last-in, first-out rule that served the US so well in 1995. Rejection of new filers is more important as a deterrent than processing old cases. In fact, DHS’s asylum office returned to last-in, first-outscheduling five months ago, and affirmative claims have already dropped by 30 percent.
This excellent change will not have the needed impact until the immigration courts complete comparable revisions to their scheduling system and thus assure the six-month decision timetable. We also need to be systematic about removing unsuccessful asylum seekers with a final order.
This would return us to a system where prompt denial on the merits after a fair hearing, not cruelty to applicants, serves as the main deterrent to weak or abusive claims.
2) Make smart use of detention, including family detention as needed, plus alternative measures to avoid flight. Some critics hope that the public revulsion against child separation will lead to ending virtually all detention of asylum seekers. Others theorize that Trump’s planners adopted the separation strategy just to get courts to end constraints they now impose on family detention — because family detention would look so much kinder than separation.
Detention, however, is an inescapable part of the immigration enforcement process, at least when people first arrive at the border and claim asylum. (It’s also essential later, to facilitate or carry out removals of those with a final order.) The judicious use of detention can help reassure skittish publics in times of truly high flow of asylum seekers.
In such times, centralized facilities housing asylum seekers also hold other potential benefits, as was recognized in a 1981 report by a blue-ribbon commission on immigration reform, chaired by Father Theodore Hesburgh from the University of Notre Dame. (The Hesburgh commission issued its report a year after the Mariel boatlift from Cuba brought 125,000 asylum seekers to US shores within a few months.)
Such facilities provide a centralized location for prompt asylum interviews and court hearings. Run properly, which requires constant and committed monitoring, they also can facilitate regular and efficient ongoing access to counsel — particularly when, as is typical in a high-influx situation, most representation comes from organized pro-bono efforts.
The Trump administration has sent unclear and confusing signals about its overall plans while now trying to persuade courts to allow more room for family detention. As a matter of policy, we need to keep family detention available in the toolbox but we should not see it as an early or primary option — especially since the administration has not exhausted other methods, and the Central American flow is not as massive as officials paint it.
Critics today often argue that detention is unnecessary, pointing to high attendance rates by asylum seekers at court hearings. That observation is true, but incomplete. A well-functioning system needs released respondents to show up not just for hearings where a good thing might happen, but also for removal if they lose their asylum cases.
Good data are not available, but intermittent government snapshot reports tend to find that fewer than a sixth of the nondetained are actually removed after the issuance of a final removal order. Policymakers and advocates who want to reduce the use of detention need to attend to that latter statistic, and improve it.
To be sure, detention should not be used routinely. Alternatives to detention — such as intensive release supervision or ankle-bracelet monitoring — are generally more cost-effective. When actual detention is employed, conditions of confinement must be humane and must fully accommodate access to counsel. The Obama administration made headway toward those ends, including creating better family facilities.
3) Think hard about the realistic range of refugee protection, and be more rigorous about “internal protection alternatives.” Advocates for asylum claimants from Central America today have been working to expand the conceptual boundaries of protected refugee classes. Few of those applicants are claiming classic forms of persecution — by an oppressive government, based on the target’s race or religion or political opinion.
A great many claims today are based on domestic violence or risks from murderous criminal gangs, in the context of ineffectual government. Our whole system faces a challenge to determine whether and how such claims fit within the refugee laws and treaties.
The asylum seekers’ cases are highly sympathetic, but they also prompt concerns about figuring out workable boundary lines on any such protection commitment. Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a highly restrictive ruling in June. It held that private crimes, including gang retribution and domestic violence, can rarely serve as the basis for a valid asylum claim. Expect a wide variety of reactions from reviewing courts over coming months and years.
But while that interpretive struggle proceeds, an immediate practical step can be taken to alleviate the dilemma. Adjudicators need to pay more systematic attention to the availability of what are known as “internal protection alternatives.” Asylum applicants who can find reasonable safety within the home country, even at the cost of moving to a new city or region — for example, because that region has a good network of domestic violence shelters — should be required to return to those regions, rather than relocate to the US.
Though this “internal protection alternatives” concept is already part of US and international law, it is understandable why many people balk at taking a firm line on it. The applicant would almost surely face lower risks in the United States than back in the home country, and real hardships can be incurred by moving to a new city where the person may not know anyone.
But that objection has to be kept in perspective. We are talking about protection in another part of one’s homeland, for someone who has already shown the resourcefulness to venture thousands of miles to a distant country, with an unfamiliar culture and language. Asylum should not be thought of as a prize for a person who has endured harm or threats, no matter how much sympathy or admiration he or she may deserve for weathering that past. Asylum is a forward-looking last-resort type of measure to shelter those who cannot find adequate protection other ways.
US Vice-President Mike Pence (L) and Guatemalan President Jimmy Morales at a joint press conference in Guatemala City on June 28 — a stop on the vice president’s recent Central American trip. The asylum crisis was high on the agenda.Orlando Estrada/AFP/Getty Images
4) Work with other countries to address root causes and expand potential refuge elsewhere. This brings us directly to the fourth primary measure, of particular relevance to the Central American crisis. The United States should greatly expand assistance, through bilateral aid, multilateral efforts, or the funding of NGO initiatives, toward reducing the violence that sends people in search of protection.
It’s easier in theory to address root causes when the threat is private violence, since the US can expect support rather than resistance from the government. But real effectiveness on the ground demands ongoing diplomacy, implementation skill, vigilance against corruption, and, above all, consistent funding year to year.
In Central America, past US assistance has had some visible impact in helping to reduce gang violence and murder rates. The Central American Regional Security Initiative has provided more than $1.4 billion to this effort since its start in 2008. The Trump administration, with typical short-sightedness, is moving to cut this funding. And Vice President Mike Pence’s meeting with heads of state in Guatemala City last week was a giant missed opportunity. According to press accounts, he basically just badgered those governments to stop sending people.
That message would have been so much more effective toward changing conditions on the ground if it had been joined with significantly increased aid for the security initiative. We should also expand funding to enhance police responsiveness to domestic violence in Central America and to support shelter networks.
These steps are obviously worthy in their own right, helping potential victims of all sorts, not just potential migrants. But they also can reduce the felt need to migrate and generate a more extensive menu of “internal protection alternatives” to be considered by adjudicators ruling on asylum claims.
The Obama administration also had some success in working with Mexico to discourage dangerous unauthorized travel, through information campaigns and interdiction — and to open up a modest possibility that Central Americans could find refuge in Mexico itself. President Trump’s unending insults directed at our southern neighbor have torpedoed such cooperation, but a future administration should revive it.
Revulsion at the current administration’s border practices is fully deserved. And the current administration exaggerates the crisis. But in an era where tolerance for asylum protection has become a politically scarce resource, we still need realistic and determined asylum reform measures in order to restore public confidence that migration is subject to control.
Our country’s 1995 experience shows such a change is possible, while retaining a firm commitment to refugee protection. Repeating that success will require well-targeted funding and tough-minded administrative resourcefulness to succeed.
David A. Martin is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia School of Law. He served as general counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 1995 through 1997, and as principal deputy general counsel of the Department of Homeland Security, 2009 through 2010.
MY RESPONSE TO PROFESSOR DAVID A. MARTIN’S MOST RECENT ASYLUM PROPOSAL
By Paul Wickham Schmidt
As I tell my law students, my good friend Professor David A. Martin is undoubtedly one of the most brilliant legal minds of our era. I first met David in the Carter Administration when I was the Deputy General Counsel of the “Legacy INS,” and he was the Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of State for Humanitarian Affairs, Patt Derian. David, Alex Aleinikoff, who then was in the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel, the late Jack Perkins, who was then Legislative Counsel at the DOJ, the late Jerry Tinker, Legislative Assistant to Sen. Ted Kennedy, and I, along with many others, worked closely together on the development and passage of the Refugee Act of 1980.
David and I have remained friends and kept in close touch ever since. Later, during the Clinton Administration, David appeared before me in the famous Kasinga case when I was Chair of the BIA. He invited me to be a guest lecturer at his class at UVA Law on a number of occasions, and I used the textbook that he, Alex, and others authored for my Refugee Law and Policy Class at Georgetown Law.
David has been a “life saver,” particularly for refugee women. The position that he took for the INS in Kasinga helped me bring a near unanimous Board to protect women who faced the horror of female genital mutilation (“FGM”).
Later, the famous “Martin brief,” written while David was serving as the Deputy General Counsel of DHS in the Obama Administration, urged the recognition of domestic abuse as a form of gender-based persecution. It saved numerous lives of some of the most deserving asylum applicants ever. It also supported those of us in the Immigration Judiciary who had been granting such cases ever since the BIA’s atrociously wrong majority decision in Matter of R-A-was vacated by Attorney General Reno.
The “Martin brief,” of course was the forerunner of Matter of A-R-C-G-, recognizing domestic violence as a form of gender based- persecution. Sadly, as noted by many commentators, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has recently attacked refugee women by overruling Matter of A-R-C-G-and reinstating the long-discredited bogus reasoning of the R-A-majority!
With that bit of history in mind, Here are my reactions to David’s proposal for another “bureaucratic rescue” of the asylum system.
Don’t Blame The Victims.
With acknowledgement and credit to my good friend retired Judge Carol King, we need to stop blaming the refugees who are fleeing the human rights disaster in the Northern Triangle (that we helped cause). They are actually the victims. There is no “crisis” except the one caused by the cruel and incompetent policies of the Trump Administration directed at refugees compounded by the gross mismanagement of the U.S. Immigration Court system over the last three Administrations including, of course, this Administration.
Let Judges Run The Courts.
The idea that bureaucrats sitting in Washington and Falls Church, no matter how well-intentioned (and I’m not accusing anyone in the Trump Administration of being “well-intentioned”) can keep redesigning the Immigration Court System and manipulating dockets without any meaningful input from the judges actually hearing the cases is absurd. It’s a big part of the reason that the Immigration Court system is basically in free fall today. The key to running any good court system is to have judges in charge of the system and their own dockets. Judges should hire bureaucrats, when necessary, to work for the judges and help them, not the other way around. A court system run as a government agency, such as EOIR, is “designed to fail.” And, not surprisingly, it is failing.
Protection Not Rejection.
Refugee and asylum laws are there to protect individuals in harm’s way. But, you wouldn’t know it from most recent BIA asylum precedents and the disingenuously xenophobic and racist statements of this Administration. No, from the BIA and the bureaucrats one would think that the purpose of asylum law was to develop ever more creatively inane and nonsensical ways NOT to protect those in need – hyper-technical, often incomprehensible requirements for “particular social groups;” bogus “nexus” tests that ignore or pervert normal rules of causation; “adverse credibility” findings that are more like a game of “gotcha” than a legitimate evaluation of an applicant’s testimony in context; denial of representation; coercive use of detention; politicized “country reports” often designed to obscure the real problems; misuse of the in absentia process; hiring judges who have little or no understanding of asylum law from an applicant’s standpoint; intentionally unrealistic and overwhelming evidentiary standards; misapplications of the one-year deadline; cultural insensitivity, etc. That’s not the direction the Supreme Court was pointing us to when they set forth a generous interpretation of the “well-founded fear” standard for asylum in INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca back in 1987.
Gender-Based Claims Fit Squarely Within “Classic” Refugee Law.
No, claims based on domestic violence and/or resistance to gangs aren’t “non-traditional.” What might be “non-traditional” is for largely male-dominated bureaucracies, legislatures, courts, and law enforcement authorities to recognize the true situation of women. In fact, gender is clearly immutable/fundamental to identity, particularized, and socially distinct. Moreover, there is a clear political element to gender-based violence in patriarchal societies. And in countries like those of the Northern Triangle where gangs have infiltrated and intimidated the governments and in many areas are the “de facto” government, of course resistance to gangs is going to be viewed as a political statement with harsh consequences. As Sessions recently proved in Matter of A-B-and the Third Circuit confirmed in S.E.R.L. v. Att’y Gen., it takes pages and pages of legal gobbledygook and linguistic nonsense to avoid the obvious truths about gender-based violence and how it is, in fact, a “classic” form of persecution well within international protections.
Detention Isn’t The Answer.
Civil immigration detention is the problem, not the answer. How perverse is this: Under Sessions’s “zero tolerance” policy, hapless asylum applicants are “prosecuted” for “misdemeanor illegal entry.” The “criminal penalty?” One or two days in jail.
Then, they can apply for asylum as they are legally entitled to do under our laws. The civil penalty for exercising their legal rights? Potentially indefinite detention in substandard conditions that in many cases would be illegal if they were applied to convicted criminals.
I’ve been involved with immigration detention for most of my professional career, primarily from the Government side. I’ve witnessed first-hand its coercive, de-humanizing effect on those detained, mostly non-criminals.
But, that’s not all. Immigration detention also corrodes, corrupts, and diminishes the humanity of those officials who participate in and enable the process. It also is wasteful, expensive, and ineffective as deterrent (which it’s not supposed to be used for anyway). It diminishes us as a nation. It’s time to put an end to “civil” immigration detention in all but the most unusual cases.
No, I Don’t Have All the Answers.
But, I do know that it’s time for us as a country to begin living up to our national, international, and moral obligations to refugees and asylum seekers. We owe these fellow human beings a humane reception, a fair processing and adjudication system that complies completely with Due Process, a fair and generous application of our protection laws, and thoughtful and respectful treatment regardless of outcome. We haven’t even begun to exhaust our capacity for accepting refugees and asylees. Studies show that refugees are good for the United States and vice versa.
But, if we really don’t want many more here, then we had better get busy working with UNHCR and other countries that are signatories to the 1952 Refugee Convention to solve the problems driving refugee flows and to provide durable refuge in various safe locations. And, a great start would be to reprogram the huge amounts of money we now waste on purposeless, ineffective, and inhumane immigration enforcement, needless immigration detention, inappropriate prosecutions, scores of government lawyers defending these counterproductive policies, and more bureaucratic “silver bullet” schemes that won’t solve the problem. We could put that money to far better use assisting and resettling more refugees and developing constructive solutions to the problems that cause refugees in the first place.
It’s high time to put an end to “same old, same old,” repeating and doubling down on the proven failures of the past, and “go along to get along” bureaucracy and judging. We need a “brave new regime” (obviously the polar opposite of the present one) focused on the overall good and improvement of humanity, not promoting the biased and selfish interests of the few! And, who knows? We might find out that by working collectively and cooperatively and looking out for the common interests, we’ll also be improving our own prospects.
:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/11631193/GettyImages_983050074.jpg)
:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/11631215/GettyImages_986622846.jpg)